Last Word: Sport, ownership, and morality
Lisa Sthalekar (pictured), former Australian cricket captain and now mentor to the UP Warriorz in the WPL, was asked on a recent podcast about the tournament’s opening game, Mumbai Indians vs. Gujarat Giants. “Has anyone wondered where the money (of these teams) comes from?” It was a casual, thrown-away conversational question, and Sthalekar could have laughed at it.
Instead, she struck a pragmatic note. “It’s very difficult these days, especially in women’s sport,” she replied, “to review every company,” implying that most companies may have something that “isn’t right.” To be honest, she says everyone is swept up in what is happening in women’s cricket.
There is an element here of not looking the gift horse in the mouth.
Advertising
Advertising
ALSO READ – Data rights are the new buzzword in sport
How accountable are sports teams for their owners’ other activities? If things like human rights and economic fraud don’t affect political relations between countries, why should sport be expected to pay attention?
Qatar, which spent around $250 billion on the World Cup and has received a few million words of criticism for its political, cultural and social policies, has nevertheless staged a successful tournament.
Now the country wants to buy the legendary Manchester United Football Club, which is 150 years old and has 659 million followers according to a recent poll.
hypocrisy
Fans in England are divided for the same reasons that criticized the World Cup. But considering other league teams like Newcastle United and Manchester City are owned by Middle Eastern potentates, there’s a certain hypocrisy here. The Qatar Investment Authority (worth about $450 billion) already owns all or part of British landmarks such as Harrod’s, Sainsbury’s, Barclays Bank, The Shard, Canary Wharf, Claridge’s and Heathrow Airport.
Owning a sports club is one way to win the hearts and minds of people in general. Qatar already own French club Paris St Germain (bought in 2011). Outside of Qatar, if there are concerns that a country should own a football club or any of these other properties, the ruling family can point to the various funds that have been put in place to give the whole a sense of coming from different sources and directions .
The Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) has objected to a potential takeover by Qatar because of that country’s human rights record.
Some of the unrest is more football-related. The problems in Paris St. Germain are not about money, they are about management. Manchester City, owned by the United Arab Emirates, have been charged with financial irregularities.
And yet the question remains: do sports and sports teams need to worry about the ethical standards of their financiers, or will a higher morality be imposed on sport? Why should a British public, unperturbed by Qatar’s takeover of many public spaces, be upset about the change of ownership of a football team? Regardless of the track record of the owners of Mumbai Indians and Gujarat Giants, should a cricketer be expected to turn down their offers to support the sport?
The answers are not as clear as the questions.